You. Your Cigarettes. Radiation Worse Than Chernobyl. What Corporation’s DON’T want you to know.

reply to post by BlackPoison94


If tobacco leaves collect radiation on their leaves or it take it up from the soil, then so do other crops.

And I'm pretty sure our "normal" exposure to radiation is about to skyrocket, Again.

Originally posted by wiredamerican

There is a conspiracy that the radiation in cigarette smoke is actually beneficial to the human body and prevents many diseases that non smokers get normally.

Government health organizations say smoking is bad because the big business owners and think-tanks figured out that smokers need far less health care than non smokers.

I had Mycobacterium Avium Complex (MAC) a few years back, the doctor told me if I hadn't been a smoker, my conditions would have been much worse. He said there was a chemical in the cigarettes that prevented the mycobacterium from developing more rapidly... Even if the risks out way the benefits, I still smoke today, due to the fact that the infections can start again.

...and at age 48 I still rarely see a doctor, come to think about it, the only reason I have been to the doctor is to get steches or fix a broken body part. hum, you could be right.

reply to post by Artanis667


I agree that's funny !

More seriously, I agree about the fertilizers use and how they have increasingly been "poisoned" to serve us nice clean leavesor veggies, fruits and so fort. But this really doesn't go for cigarettes alone.
It's even worth for fruits and vegetables....(and speciallly in the US)

Also, you think companies like Philip Morris are going bankrupt ?
No. They actually make more money now since they have bought almost all the drug/patch licenses for every smoker that wants to quit smoking. They even have shares in top selling books about how to quit smoking.
My brother (a non smoker) used to work for Philip Morris and gave me that info randomly. But you can check it online aswell and look up the branches and their biz. activities.

They now make even more money....thanks to the anti smoking campaigns and guess who finances it in the end ?

That's the thing, create fear in the world and you are sure you get your business going.

I'm not saying smoking is good for your health....but the radiations are probably as high or even higher with strawberrys.....

Anyways, the chances that we all die of cancer are pretty high so you might as well want to live your life and have some fun....

reply to post by BlackPoison94


Please change the word cooperations to corperations in the title

if the levels for smokers are worse than whats been spilled by radiation leaks, no need for me then to start panicking over air quality issues, still alive and kicking after 30+ years of abuse from cigarettes and no harm or defects in affliction as yet from this as cause.

Propaganda. They base this on studies in Greece about effects from Chernobyl.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... overy_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

The radioactivity in tobacco leaves collected from 15 different regions of Greece before cigarette production was studied in order to find any association between the uptake of the naturally occurring radionuclides and the isotopes of cesium of Chernobyl origin. The activities of the isotopes of radium, 226Ra and 228Ra, in the tobacco leaves reflected their origin from the soil by root uptake rather than from fertilizers used in the tobacco cultivation. Lead-210 originated from the air and was deposited onto the tobacco leaves and trapped by the trichomes. Potassium-40 in the tobacco leaves was due to root uptake either from soil or from fertilizer. The isotopes of cesium, 137Cs and 134Cs, in the tobacco leaves were due to root uptake and not due to deposition onto the leaf foliage as they still remained in soil four years after the Chernobyl reactor accident but were absent from the atmosphere in rain washout (precipitation) and gravitational settling.

reply to post by BlackPoison94

Start smoking today!

Known anticarcinogens

There is epidemiological evidence that a diet rich in antioxidant vitamins and flavonoids is anticarcinogenic. Interest in many popular nutritional supplements, including essential antioxidant nutrients such as selenium compounds and hormones such as melatonin and DHEA, is partly motivated by evidence that these have significant anticarcinogenic effects in appropriate quantities. The major psychoactive component in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol, has been shown to have anticarcinogenic activity.[1] The other major component of cannabis - cannabidiol, has also been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth, with low potency in non-cancer cells. Although the inhibitory mechanism is not yet fully understood, Ligresti et al. suggest that "cannabidiol exerts its effects on these cells through a combination of mechanisms that include either direct or indirect activation of CB2 and TRPV1 receptors, and induction of oxidative stress, all contributing to induce apoptosis."[2].

en.wikipedia.org...

Anticarcinogen

An anticarcinogen is any chemical which reduces the occurrence of cancers, reduces the severity of cancers that do occur, or acts against cancers that do occur, based on evidence from in vitro studies, animal models, epidemiological studies and/or clinical studies. Preventative anticarcinogens act by enhancing an organism's natural defenses against cancer, by deactivating carcinogens or by blocking the mechanisms by which carcinogens act (such as free radical damage to DNA). Anticarcinoma agents participate in the selective destruction of cancer cells, or inhibit the growth and proliferation of cancer cells. See also: Chemotherapy. Interest in preventative anticarcinogens is motivated primarily by the principle that it is preferable to prevent disease where possible, and that positive actions can be effective as well as negative ones (such as reducing exposure to known carcinogens). Anticarcinoma agents that do not have significant negative side effects have a similar potential role, by reducing the seriousness of any cancers that do occur.

en.wikipedia.org...

So we have anti-oxidant rich foods.... Check..

Chemo therapy... check..

Smoking or ingesting green illegal substances and tobacco.. check... err wait what was that?

Yes, that's right.

Antioxidant Activity in Tobacco Products

Antioxidant Activity in Tobacco Products

Tobacco Product....... Type.................Antioxidant Activity
Camel.......................Cigarette...........230
Oliver Twist................SLT Pellet.........195
Marlboro....................Cigarette...........190
Kodiak Moist.............snuff.................132
Skoal Bandits............SLT Pouch........97

This research was supported by the Tobacco Research Fund (UAB).

In other words, smoking (organic) tobacco and marijuana prevents cancer.

Ext Link

Originally posted by redgy

if the levels for smokers are worse than whats been spilled by radiation leaks, no need for me then to start panicking over air quality issues, still alive and kicking after 30+ years of abuse from cigarettes and no harm or defects in affliction as yet from this as cause.

i hear that!

my wife's friend died last week of lung cancer. she never smoked.

same age as my wife, 49.
doctor said it was because of 2nd hand smoke from her husband.

geeze! i don't believe it was 2nd hand smoke!

i am a heavy smoker since 13yo, i am a 44 year smoker. i get sick way less than my wife. rarely get a cold and can't remember the last time i had the flu.

my great grandma lived to 103, smoked into her mid 90's.
must be the radiation.

which might be a good thing, it'll kill alot of stuff if it don't kill you first.
i don't recommend or encourage smoking to anyone, that is a personal choice.

what kills me is that the tobacco co's could make a cleaner cigarette.


btw, i never smoke around my wife or other non smokers.

Firstly, I respect the people who are trying to quit this habit. I for one have some experience in that matter as when I was working part time at a bar I got hooked on the nicotine drug.

A few things to consider, smokers are the biggest sheeps in society, letting corporations ruin their own lives. Especially ones who try and justify their own habit. Also I'm betting a lot of these smokers have a bad enough sex life with blockage and damage to their arteries, causing their genitals to go limp. And that is a fact.

I think finding out the latter for me took me down the right path to quitting. I'm much more healthier now for joining and training at the gym and can say I have a healthy sex life.

reply to post by nahsik


If smoking is so bad why are they using propaganda and lieing to try and get someone to quit?

Propaganda. They base this on studies in Greece about effects from Chernobyl.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... overy_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

The radioactivity in tobacco leaves collected from 15 different regions of Greece before cigarette production was studied in order to find any association between the uptake of the naturally occurring radionuclides and the isotopes of cesium of Chernobyl origin. The activities of the isotopes of radium, 226Ra and 228Ra, in the tobacco leaves reflected their origin from the soil by root uptake rather than from fertilizers used in the tobacco cultivation. Lead-210 originated from the air and was deposited onto the tobacco leaves and trapped by the trichomes. Potassium-40 in the tobacco leaves was due to root uptake either from soil or from fertilizer. The isotopes of cesium, 137Cs and 134Cs, in the tobacco leaves were due to root uptake and not due to deposition onto the leaf foliage as they still remained in soil four years after the Chernobyl reactor accident but were absent from the atmosphere in rain washout (precipitation) and gravitational settling.

This thread should be listed as a hoax.

reply to post by Ucabearbone


With all due respect, I think you mean - corporations.

why use a geiger counter or stuff like that when you can use a simple... black light... to detect radioactivity.

Nice... or not.

What a stupid video... god...

10 years of smoking, I'm glad I quit but darn, I think I'm finished. how can you repair the damage?

reply to post by Deja`Vu


Smoking cessation timeline - the health benefits over time

In 20 minutes, your blood pressure and pulse rate decrease, and the body temperature of your hands and feet increase.
Carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke reduces the blood’s ability to carry oxygen.

At 8 hours, the carbon monoxide level in your blood decreases to normal. With the decrease in carbon monoxide, your blood oxygen level increases to normal.

At 24 hours, your risk of having a heart attack decreases.

At 48 hours, nerve endings start to regrow and the ability to smell and taste is enhanced.
Between 2 weeks and 3 months, your circulation improves, walking becomes easier and you don’t cough or wheeze as often. Phlegm production decreases. Within several months, you have significant improvement in lung function.

In 1 to 9 months, coughs, sinus congestion, fatigue and shortness of breath decrease as you continue to see significant improvement in lung function. Cilia, tiny hair-like structures that move mucus out of the lungs, regain normal function.

In 1 year, risk of coronary heart disease and heart attack is reduced to half that of a smoker.

Between 5 and 15 years after quitting, your risk of having a stroke returns to that of a non-smoker.

In 10 years, your risk of lung cancer drops. Additionally, your risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney and pancreas decrease. Even after a decade of not smoking however, your risk of lung cancer remains higher than in people who have never smoked. Your risk of ulcer also decreases.

In 15 years, your risk of coronary heart disease and heart attack in similar to that of people who have never smoked. The risk of death returns to nearly the level of a non-smoker.

reply to post by BlackPoison94


Is there no end to the lengths that anti-tobacco will go to spread their propaganda.

Here it is folks - all the information you need about radiation in tobacco smoke

en.wikipedia.org...

The big thing for you to notice here is that the same Polonium is also in the air and in other crops AND it has a half-life of only 138 days.

Compare THAT to the radiation from Chernobyl! and Fushimaka!

What is wrong with you people - is there no tragedy to serious for you to compare to the "theoretical" deaths caused by smoking? Just how low are you prepared to go and how seriously are you willing to lie?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by Stop-loss!


That's the Ammonia that makes them glow. But I am not doubting they have radiation

ETA: Spelling

reply to post by BlackPoison94


Some of those numbers were so biased, made me laugh when I did the number crunching while reading.

But..
More reasons why smoking is so hazardous to your health. If you don't want to quit, I hope you realize what you are doing to your body. S&F

hey, i wish everyone would quit!

it would take the money out of the pockets of the people that

got you coming and going on the smoking issue!

gov, tobacco co's, lobbyists, big pharm, madison ave, on and on!

i wish i never started but no one gets out alive anyway.

reply to post by fooks


Your friend died because of secondhand smoke, which you don't believe.

You get sick way less than your wife and you are the smoker. But what about the secondhand smoke that could effect her? Your story makes it seem like another one for secondhand smoke effecting others.

I'm fine with people wanting to use tobacco, to each their own. But what I think they should do is try to smoke tobacco that is grown without the radioactive infused fertilizer. I think the less radiation the better.

reply to post by TripleSalCal


it "seems" like it don't it.


i don't believe in 2nd hand smoke killing people faster than people that smoke.

i'm sure she didn't work in a bar and didn't inhale from every cig that her husband smoked in their marrage.

i would be more worried about living in hong kong or any other big city all your life.(where she lived)

like from exhaust? factories etc.

smoke screen, forgive the pun.

but radiation? well, life's a beach. ya get melanoma from the sun too, don't ya?

or is it from the crap they tell ya to put on for it?